Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Bloomberg Originals" channel.

@jensenraylight8011 3 cars? You can barely buy 1 car for $68K. It really isn't a lot of money anymore. Heck, a million dollars isn't a lot of money anymore. My house is worth $1.6M and it's a smallish bog standard 3 bedroom that just happens to be in a nice neighbourhood.
39
Every politician in Australian state and federal politics is also a residential housing investor. There is no political will to see housing prices fall, or even stabilise. The same is true from the banks who are making mega profits hand over fist from these loans, safe in the knowledge if that defaults are exceptionally low and when they do happen the property can be sold at profit anyway. The majority of developments being built from private capital are "luxury" apartment blocks. The small number of those developments required to have some "affordable" options only have to knock 25% off their normal asking price. When your asking price is $2.5M for an apartment, 25% off isn't affordable. Our housing market in Australia is this way because of corruption. Plain and simple.
7
I don't get it. I can understand a drop in consumer confidence in Pepsi I can understand a loss of trust in Pepsi I can understand a significant impact on Pepsi sales for a couple years. I can understand disappointment and perhaps even some resentment. I can't understand the tunnel vision focus that leads to people fixating on Pepsi failing to fulfill their obligations under a contest, to the point that PEOPLE DIED... What a waste of a life.
4
Video acknowledges how our attempts to meddle with nature in the past have had dire consequences. Video also acknowledges that humans are part of the natural world, not above it or separate from it. Then immediately goes into ignoring both of those things and repeating all the mistakes of the past but on a grander scale that will be even more devastating. Worst possible idea. Leave nature to nature. We don't understand what we're doing and can't possibly see all of the variables.
3
Literally nothing you just said is true
3
Very lame sod off mate im british Your sarcasm doesn't cover up your tears. Only fools buy Tesla.
2
So she was convicted for having information she was employed by coke to have, on the basis she may commit a crime with it in the future? I hope the ACLU get her out of prison soon, that's pretty messed up. You can't convict someone for future crimes, this isn't the minority report.
1
The likelihood of that first company trying to ferry passengers by airship succeeding and remaining financially solvent is zero. They might eventually get something into commercial operations, they might even manage to get a few novelty passengers. But they'll never get a ROI let alone a profit. They are doomed to failed. Consider their example of England to Ireland travel. There are already planes, there are already ferries. The airship is more expensive than the plane, but much slower whilst being less convenient and more expensive than the ferry, and still having the same centralised hub design of an airport. At least on the ferry I can take my vehicle with me, and at least in the plane it's cheaper, faster and has established rail infrastructure to support getting to and from the hub The airship has none of that. I can already go for a cruise to the north pole by boat for less money, at greater convenience, more luxury and I still get the benefit of flying over on a helicopter. Airships as passenger vehicles have no chance. Airships for cargo in very specific situations on the other hand that has a potential (but not guaranteed) market future. It's interesting that this report didn't even mention the Amazon Prime Air venture that has been working on using airships as an intermediary between cargo planes and cargo ships, to do faster overwater trips between China and Amazon distribution hubs for select high demand items that need to be moved faster than a ship can but whilst cutting cost on cargo planes. That has potential if for no other reason than because it's a closed ecosystem where the manufacturer is also the end customer and they want it to happen.
1
@Cement_Feathered_Bird You're showing your failure, dude
1
No @Dorgpoop you definitely can't.
1
No @cubzrulz standard brand new cars cost around the $56-70kK price range for anything from sedan up
1
@lunare_ The average sedan is between $56-$70K.
1
@viscousgoo2021 only in a third world country.
1
No @youssefrochdi1994 You can buy small cars for $26-38K. The average sedan is between $56-$70K brand new. That's what things actually cost.
1
Highly doubt what @dotdankory ?
1
@lunare_ In a developed country
1
@lunare_ No one said anything about USD. But yes, doing a conversation an average sedan still costs in the $60K ball park. Yes, a leading developed country. High prices are what happens when you have high minimum and high average wages. $68K represents ~2/3 of an average annual salary.
1
@fortnotegamer6449 Nah. Things just aren't cheap anymore. $68K objectively isn't a lot of money anymore.
1
@emailsharedbyafewpeople4105 If you have the option to pay $25K for a sedan (not that anyone buys sedans anymore), you live in a developing country. In developed countries, they come with more safety features and cost $50-60K standard.
1
@keybladerasta4142 Not a brand new one you didn't
1
@sergionuno so.... what? You live in a developing economy, we're discussing developed economies. When discussing the purchase of vehicles, we're also talking about new vehicles.
1
@sergionuno No. Once again you're trying to shift the goal post. $1.5M is the median price for a small house now days in my city. In another city in my country that $1.5M will only buy you a small apartment. All developed economies have high housing costs in their cities comparable to those in my country. You can not directly compare prices in an undeveloped economy to those in a developed economy. As wages and population increase so do prices. $68K isn't even a deposit on a home anymore, that's why developed economies all have housing affordability problems. Owning a house worth $1.5M would mean you're rich where you live, but in a developed economy you're middle class or below and the wealthy own houses valued in the 10s or 100s of millions. Again, we are not talking about houses, undeveloped economies or used cars. We are talking exclusively about the price of a brand new vehicle from full size sedan up, in a developed economy.
1
@sergionuno Apparently you just want to make believe. You are correct in that things are relative however you are applying it incorrectly and don't appear to understand what it means. You make the common mistake when looking between economies that pricing you experience locally apply then imagine wealth where none exists by apply median wages or prices of goods onto your own economy. It doesn't work like that. There's plenty of undeveloped economies where $68K would buy you a mansion with sprawling grounds and leave you enough left over to live like a king for 20 years. People in those countries imagine you are rich because you have a house with clean water and access to the internet. Are you wealthy and privileged? Wealth is relative to the economy it occurs in. Where median wages are high, so is cost of living. For example, in the Phillipines a McDonald's Sausage and Egg McMuffin MEAL costs 144 Philippines Pesos, or $2.81USD, I just checked. That exact same meal in my country costs $12.17USD or 624.74 Phillipines Pesos when converted. I used USD as a neutral third party reserve currency to make the comparison clear, I am not from yankville. To use another standard metric, the average cost of a loaf of bread in Philippines is 15.27PHP or $0.30USD. 30c US for a loaf of bread. In my country the cost of that same loaf of bread is $3.18USD or 163.14PHP. I can buy a full meal from McDonald's in the Philippines and still have change left over for the price of a single loaf of bread in my country. That's the power of inflation. You can have 3 middle class workers, and if one is in a undeveloped economy, one is in a developing economy and one is in a developed economy they will have vastly different costs of living and wages despite being in the same socioeconomic station. In a developed economy $68K is not a lot of money anymore. It indeed will only buy you 1 midrange vehicle. Or perhaps you're just a troll and you don't care what I say, you'll just talk some nonsense because you're not here to engage in genuine discourse you just want to spack out. Is that what's going on? I guess what you comment next, if anything, will tell us. If you still want to claim some nonsense about privilege then it's safe to say you're a troll and can be disregarded. * All figures are valid on 16 Jan 22 but will change over time.
1
@sergionuno No. The quote from OP that we're discussing is from the video and directed towards an audience from developed economies in 2021. The quote is a pretext to an explainer about what that money was in Philippines. OPs original comment is attempting to suggest that $68K is a lot of money still in a developed economy. All you have done this entire time is attempt to move the goal posts. This thread isn't about the value of $68K in the 90s, about what it can buy in Philippines, about developing economies, houses, or any such thing. This thread is about the purchasing power of $68K in 2021 for developed economies. Anything else you want to say is entirely irrelevant and derailing to this thread. Do you have something constructive to say about purchasing power in developed economies today?
1
I don't agree, nor do most consumers. People might virtue signal, but if it were a reality they'd hate it. We don't get to have 16X the naturally occurring maximum global population, without technologies that harm us, change us and increase risk of disease.
1
I enjoyed that the worst case conclusion was that it would be a bipolar world with US and China. Back in reality the USA hasn't been competitive for decades. US big tech relies heavily on talent recruited from around the world, mainly from Asian countries. The most likely scenario is not the US verse China, the most likely scenario is the US ceases to have any global standing. They become a middle power with an ever shrinking economy, and China far surpasses them. The USA is unlikely to exist in the form it does today by the end of the century.
1
@chrispekel5709 No. Absolutely every single member of parliament who has been in the job for 18 months or longer is a residential property investor. 100% of them. It's a demonstrable organised racket that is on public record. It's the ENTIRE point behind quota based first home buyer schemes. The quotas are calculated annually based on market demand in order to keep the market artificially hot. Without those schemes demand for home ownership would fall off a cliff and housing prices along with it right down until housing genuinely became affordable again. All the politicians would lose on their investments. So would their developer friends building nothing but "luxury" or "premium" apartments. The banks don't want that either because it would mean suddenly they're exposed on hundreds of thousands of mortgages worth more than the properties they're secured against. Meanwhile based on government figures only 8% of the population are owner occupiers with an active mortgage. The bulk of home ownership in this country falls to those with established homes that have paid them off or are within 5 years of doing so and thus are not exposed to rate hikes. All public information my friend, look it up.
1
Correction: Most prolific female Ponzi Schemer in US history. It is a source of endless frustration that yankvillains believe their history is world history and fail to make the distinction that their tops of anything aren't necessarily (and usually aren't) the tops globally. Edit: The most prolific female Ponzi Schemer in world history was in Thailand. This woman isn't even top 20 globally.
1
This wasn't a "radical experiment". Flexible work arrangements with remote work have been a thing for 15 or so years. We were always moving towards the point we're at now, it was just supposed to take place over a further 15 years. What CoVID-19 did was sped up that transition. Over the longer timescale the market, including the real estate and retail markets would have time to adjust. Under this new sped up time scale there's going to be retail closures and it's going to drive down commercial rents for office space. With that said, some sectors are going to return to precisely the way they were before simply because those in management aren't ready to make the switch mentally. Even where remote work has been demonstrated as productive or more so. The conclusions of this video are frankly, wrong.
1